Author
Topic: Sidney Crosby and History (Read 810 times)

So here's an idle thing to kick around on a boring day. Now that he's reached a 4th cup final in a cap era and suffered through some more health stuff, is it time to start thinking of Crosby from a historical perspective? Obviously he could still have a ton of hockey left but can we begin to wrap our heads around him in the GOAT conversation?

So, for me, he's definitely with the holy trinity of Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr. But after that? I think still behind Gordie and, with the caveat that it's an impossible comparison, Hasek. After that? I don't know. I think he's definitely in the top 10, maybe top 7.

I don't have a set definition for these things but this right now is probably my Crosby-free top 10:

I have a hard time dealing with the Howe/Beliveau/Hull crowd since they were well, well before my time. My rankings would be something like this:

1a: Gretzky1b: Lemieux2: Orr

Obviously I never saw Orr play either but I can of course see the pretty clear case that he should be top-3. As for the Gretzky vs. Lemieux debate, I think that it's best summed up by saying that Gretzky had the greatest career while Lemieux was the greatest player. I'm stealing that from somebody else, not sure where I heard it but I think it was here/Nik.

After that Hasek, Jagr, and Lidstrom are all next in line. Honestly, it really doesn't matter how you rank them. I'd probably go Jagr-Hasek-Lidstrom though. I'd pretty comfortably put Crosby in this group, either just ahead of Lidstrom or maybe just behind. And I think he has a solid chance of being the clear-cut #4 by the end of his career.

After that Hasek, Jagr, and Lidstrom are all next in line. Honestly, it really doesn't matter how you rank them. I'd probably go Jagr-Hasek-Lidstrom though. I'd pretty comfortably put Crosby in this group, either just ahead of Lidstrom or maybe just behind. And I think he has a solid chance of being the clear-cut #4 by the end of his career.

I think that's probably fair, and, really, I think one of the areas where people might be getting tripped up is that we're judging Crosby in the middle of his career against players who have finished their careers (or, in the case of Jagr, played the equivalent of players who have done so).

Logged

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

After that Hasek, Jagr, and Lidstrom are all next in line. Honestly, it really doesn't matter how you rank them. I'd probably go Jagr-Hasek-Lidstrom though. I'd pretty comfortably put Crosby in this group, either just ahead of Lidstrom or maybe just behind. And I think he has a solid chance of being the clear-cut #4 by the end of his career.

I think that's probably fair, and, really, I think one of the areas where people might be getting tripped up is that we're judging Crosby in the middle of his career against players who have finished their careers (or, in the case of Jagr, played the equivalent of players who have done so).

Jagr is amusing to me. It's not entirely fair because the KHL and Czech leagues aren't direct equivalents to the NHL but: 2004 lockout to present - 875 points in 922 games (652 points in 684 games in the NHL alone). That's his career starting at the age of 33.

So here's an idle thing to kick around on a boring day. Now that he's reached a 4th cup final in a cap era and suffered through some more health stuff, is it time to start thinking of Crosby from a historical perspective? Obviously he could still have a ton of hockey left but can we begin to wrap our heads around him in the GOAT conversation?

So, for me, he's definitely with the holy trinity of Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr. But after that? I think still behind Gordie and, with the caveat that it's an impossible comparison, Hasek. After that? I don't know. I think he's definitely in the top 10, maybe top 7.

I don't have a set definition for these things but this right now is probably my Crosby-free top 10:

Because I think Sakic was better than Yzerman? Or are you looking for something more detailed?

Kinda yeah. I think they were both on par with each other. I also think Messier should be in that list if you're going to include Sakic. Also Richard should probably be in the conversation as well.

Crosby has been the most dominant player in the league since his second year of the league, when he has played. I think that puts him in the conversation of other players who have been consistently dominant over a generation.

Logged

"Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be.” - Khalil Gibran

Kinda yeah. I think they were both on par with each other. I also think Messier should be in that list if you're going to include Sakic. Also Richard should probably be in the conversation as well.

It was a top 10 list. That doesn't mean the guys at 11-15 are bad players or weren't considered. That's just where I landed on ranking them fairly informally. My thinking on Sakic is that I think that after Lemieux retired you could make a pretty compelling case for Sakic as the best player in the world for a 4-5 year stretch in a way you couldn't ever for Yzerman or Messier(Yzerman was never even a 2nd team All-Star) and if you look at Hockey Reference and their era-adjusted scoring measurement Sakic has a pretty big offensive edge on either of them.

Logged

Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon-Mark Twain

It always amazed me how Sakic was able to keep scoring at an elite level even in his late 30s. I know it was right after the lockout and scoring a little nuts then but him getting 100 points in the 06/07 season at the age of 37 was so impressive. And then injuries finally took over and he was limited to just 59 games over the next 2 seasons (while still scoring 52 points, and 10 in 10 playoff games) and finally had to retire.